Julian Assange's intentions were not in the public's interest

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that Assange's own conduct removes the public-interest defence made on his behalf. The vast majority of the information Wikileaks published under Julian Assange about the US and its allies conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan was of little interest to the public. It showed no illegal conduct and no governmental wrongdoing — and on this account that is decisive, since the case for publishing classified material rests on exposing something the public has a right to know. If the public interest does not explain the leaks, they argue, something else must. Assange leaked the information simply because he could. It was malicious, politically motivated — the Mueller report recently demonstrated the connections between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks — and put the lives of many in the intelligence community at risk. The comparison with journalism is where proponents press hardest, because journalistic protection is precisely what is being claimed for him. He didn't even treat the sensitive information in the way a journalist would. A journalist does not receive sensitive information then put it up onto the internet in a pdf. They evaluate it and determine if the benefits of publishing the information outweigh the harms to both human life and national security. That evaluation is the substance of the professional standard, and on this account it never took place. He didn't redact names to keep sources safe, even after international NGOs urged him to, which means the omission cannot be explained as an oversight — he was told, and did not act. Given that he did not behave in the interests of the public, nor did he treat the information with the sensitivity it required, Assange should not be afforded the same protections as public interest journalists, and should be extradited to the US.

Context

To hold Julian Assange up as a bastion of truth fighting the US government for information that serves the public best interests demonstrates a misunderstanding of what Wikileaks is and why he leaked US government documents.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Assange made several high-profile revelations that would fall under public interest journalism. Among the information revealed through Assange's cooperation with Chelsea Manning was a video showing US soldiers killing civilians from an Apache helicopter in Baghdad and verification that the US carried out secret drone strikes in Yemen. This information falls under the category of public interest journalism and Assange should be afforded the protections of one. He should not be indicted, nor extradited for revealing this information, regardless of how he procured it.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] He was acting in the public's best interest. [Rejecting P2] He should be treated as a public interest journalist and should be afforded the same protections. [Rejecting P3] Therefore, he should not face charges for publishing this information.